1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?
4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?
5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?
1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?
Putting reality into a context.
Pure science (and I am speaking of more than evoloutionary theory) is the most effective tool humans have come up with for categorizing reality. Science is unmatched in the area of What, How, and Where. Some may argue with When, but at least science provides a coherent framework for that.
The problem, and I recognize that Science itself declines to ask the question, is that the Why is important to many people.
The willingness to grapple with the Why? many make ID "better' in the sight of some.